While homeowners are worried about a short-term rental ordinance hurting transient occupancy tax, the Santa Barbara Ordinance Committee was more concerned about preserving neighborhoods for residents.
On Tuesday, the committee asked city staff to look for ways to simplify the application process to host short-term rentals in allowed areas as well as explore allowing homeshares in all zones except for high-fire-risk areas.
The Ordinance Committee, which consists of Councilwoman Kristen Sneddon and Councilmen Oscar Gutierrez and Mike Jordan, started the discussion last week but didn’t have enough time to rule on the ordinance because of the significant amount of public comment.
Sneddon was open about wanting a ban on short-term rentals and her concerns around fire safety, arguing that visitors in non-owner-occupied short-term rentals aren’t aware of local fire hazards.
“If you have short-term renters in high-fire-hazard areas, each weekend is a new learning process, but also a new very real risk to the neighborhood, and I just don’t think that’s right,” Sneddon said.
The proposed law is meant to create a permit pathway and clear regulations for residential homes being used as short-term rentals and homeshares, which have the owner staying in the same house along with the guests.
“It’s not about parking. It’s not about collecting TOT. For me, it’s not about noise,” Sneddon said. “It’s about stability of neighborhoods. It’s about knowing our neighbors and keeping people who are residents here in Santa Barbara.”
The rules are also meant to protect the housing supply for long-term rentals.
Under the proposed ordinance, short-term rentals and homeshares would be allowed only in certain zones of the city.
Specifically, short-term rentals would be prohibited in all inland residential zones, and allowed only in non-residential zones or mixed-use residential zones, including the downtown corridor, the Milpas Street corridor and Upper State Street.
Under the current proposal, homeshares would be allowed in all residential and non-residential zones of the coastal zone, which includes the waterfront, the Funk Zone and the Coast Village Road area.
Daryl Bernstein, a Mesa resident of 25 years, said there are five short-term rentals on his street, one in particular that has had numerous parties and caused a lot of “commotion.”
“We’ve had just an endless parade of SUVs unloading groups of bachelorette parties, bachelor parties, graduation parties,” Bernstein said. “These are all noble events, but they don’t belong in our neighborhoods that we’re trying to live peacefully in.”
Autumn Malanca said she has tried to afford living in Santa Barbara since graduating from UC Santa Barbara more than 30 years ago, which is part of the reason she and her husband turned their condo into a short-term rental.
After operating for eight years, without any complaints, Malanca said they had to sell the property because of growing regulations.
“We lost an investment because of these rules, and I think it’s really important to consider that some people are just trying to find their way here in this STR option,” Malanca said.
Other speakers asked the committee to grandfather in existing short-term rentals that are outside the proposed license areas and consider the impact of tax revenue.
Jordan shared that he regularly gets complaints about short-term rentals taking over neighborhoods, bringing large parties with live bands late at night and taco trucks on the street.
“These are not what people were assured when they moved or bought that residence, regardless of whether it’s a tourist town,” Jordan said. “We have a tourist town, but we have zones for those tourist commercial developments, and they are not single-family residential zones.”
He added that he wasn’t concerned about revenue or the impact to the hotel industry, but he was concerned with the impact that short-term rentals have on residential neighborhoods.
He also asked that city staff go through the ordinance and look for ways to streamline or simplify the process for homeowners.
At last week’s hearing, many members of the public noted that city staff did not address the Planning Commission’s request to explore waivers for parking requirements, research enforcement details, and consider a lottery- or cap-based system rather than the current proposed zoning system.
The Ordinance Committee did not specifically comment on those issues.
The proposed law is expected to return to the Ordinance Committee at a later date with more options for homeshares and for a more streamlined process.
